I know its an obvious one but, What does your company policy say on Alcohol?

Kate I am intrigued to know how you obtained any blood test results from the hospital who treated this lady. You and your colleagues are making medical assumptions, there have been instances where people have been accused of been drunk when in fact they are suffering from diabetes. I would let your HR Dept deal with the situation before you find you are getting your fingers burnt under Data Protection Legislation.

MEden380 So someone suffering from diabetes can appear drunk and smell of alcohol without having drunk alcohol? Peculia! Rich

As mentioned previously does your company have any specific policies regarding Alcohol and what would happen if anyone was found to be or suspected to be under the influence at work? For some comparison, in my company if someone was found to have alcohol in their system which was above the legal limit (in fact even well below it) they would be suspended pending an investigation which may end in dismissal.

smith6720 has it spot on in my opinion. one to one conversations with the individual, in the first instance, would be my angle of approach in the first instance. Its amazing what you can find out and eventually resolve just by talking to people!! Michael

As soon as the investigation highlighted drink against your policy individual should have been suspended on full pay with the accusation levelled to her. If its gross breach under your policy then she could be summararily dismissed (not advisable though if first offence) she needs this in writing in a letter to her home. She needs to come back for a hearing with a seperate manager to the investigating manager and be dealt with whats coming. Its usual (barmy) for 1st offences of drink,drugs,smoking on site to offer help, support, guidance, referal and the like - do not sack else it will backfire. Loads of overules if taken to tribunal. If however she does not co-operate or does it again you have a better chance of getting rid - still not cast iron but better chance.

Damelcfc No one said offer help or support!! what was said was get someone to have a quiet friendly chat, and basically see what develops from this and the rest they say is history, Like most threads on here, you do quite a lot of assumtion when answering, thats why I suppose they are quite broad and cover many avenues from different individuals, hence we all seem to get something from the threads and broaden our knowledge.

Not sure why you have typed my name in there, I have made no comment re: help and support - just outlined (very crudely) the acas guidelines for policy breach. Being liquored up at work should almost always (can't think why it wouldn't to be fair) be highlighted as a gross breach and sackable offence - wether you do actually sack or not is another matter but it should be regarded as such.

I agree Rich - That's why I said 'Barmy' but you can read it from any source you like and all will give you the same answer concerning drink, drugs - go the help/support route 1st, then if that fails go the sack route. Pls feel free to 'google' it - I totally agree with your view on vicarious liability also, it makes me mad too, very mad.

From a purely H&S point of view, you've done your bit, although I'm not sure how you can conclude the accident was caused by alcohol. The rest of the posts are irrelevant, its a HR issue now, not a H&S one.

Kate I have made no assumptions - you clearly state "however, the accident investigator and witnesses have confirmed IP smelt of alcohol. This was also confirmed by the hospital who treated her, blood test confirmed over the driving limit but IP does not drive" I merely enquired how you got hold of the blood test results to confirm the person was actually under the influence of alcohol. You as an employer are not entitled to such results unless the lady in question gives her permission.

pete48 I ask the question again "why O why would you not expect dismissal for a first offence and who says it's the norm not too. Rules are rules after all said and done and not to invoke them makes them worthless. Rich

I haven't read every word but has anyone mentioned DATA protection and revealing something from the individual's medical records? IMO as a safety person I would write to HR and express my opinion to them thus being on record in case the proverbial hits the fan at a later date.

The appeals tribunal for unfair dismissal take a very very dim view of individuals being sacked for first offences of this nature - fact. No matter how much this upsets you (and I'm on your side) its a fact.

I'm on here to discuss HR's stance on the matter - once again no breeches of any legislation at all occurred in this information being provided to us as part of this investigation - thank you. Barnaby, if you have an opinion on my request, please join the thread if not read and simply follow with interest or don’t get involved. Thank you.

Really!? are you sure about that? We have over 200 drivers just on this site, if one of them fails an alcohol test its instant dismissal following an investigation, backed 100% by the Unions on site! Its never once been contended!

Kate, The position should be handled by HR but I would expect that they would involve an Occupational Health Doctor in their decision making process. The Doctor will determine whether she is a risk and whether she should be restricted from safety critical work. Your involvement should be to identify the tasks where this would occur and risk assess along with the Doctor and person at risk. HR are in a position to offer support through counselling programs and changes in work arrangements to allow this individual to get back on their feet. This support should be based on the individuals agreement to enter a program (if its been determined necessary) which is subject to random testing. Those asking for dismissal on first offence either don't know or don't understand the expectations placed on an employer under law. They also appear to be devoid of any understanding of how difficult these situations are for both the employer and the person suffering. Any half decent employer will understand that it costs a lot of money to replace an employee and it's better spent on helping them recover to become a valued and productive member of the workforce and society. Dismissal should always be a last resort.

Since your original question was "Any opinion the HR stance", it may be useful to reconsider that. Bearing in mind that no information is available from the HR people themselves about their stance, you understandably characterise it in two ways. One aspect of the stance is political, the exercise of power and authority. While you acknowledge that HR have the relevant power and authority on matters 'escalated' tothem, you appear to question the legitimacy of their exercise of these factors. Without information from the HR folk involved I don't see how one can reconcile matters. Another aspect of their is cultural, as you state that it 'sends the wrong message'. From this it appears that there may be differences of values amongst managers that call for a cultural review according as time permits. In my experience, it's usually less fraught to generate informed cultural debate than to directly challenge the legitimacy with which power and authority are exercised - and more fruitful over timc provided the cultural factors are well researched.

Kate, it's an interesting moral question but to bring it into perspective there's a few questions you may need to ask. 1 - Are you confident that your D&A policy is published and understood by all in your workplace? So, is it something that gets mentioned once during induction and then banished to the filing cabinet until next induction. Are there clear consequences identified for a breach of policy and are these understood? Has any previous precedents been set in your workplace where a breach has occurred? (was the policy followed or was leniency shown, if so why?). 2 - Is there systems in place to assist employees with problems? Can they confidentially talk to someone with confidence that the issue will be managed discreetly and, if necessary, profesional help is available to assist them through their problems? This is vitally important. If someone has a problem but they can't raise it at work then the duty of care fails at the first step. You can't just say, 'if you've got a drink problem don't come to us but don't bring it to work'. There needs to be a support system to help those with problems. 3 - This is a bit simpler but if they've had the option to raise it and haven't; had the option to ask for help and haven't; and knowingly breached policy AND knowingly put others at risk, then it's a disciplinery issue and should be handled firmly by HR. If you have an employee that has the potential to cause injury, damage, loss and isn't willing to ask for help then it's the only way left to go. What HR may need to understand is whats already been mentioned here, the insurers won't cover anything related (and potentially unrelated) to that individual. They may also plead null and void because the policy hasn't been adhered to. Good luck with it.

Though Hall900056 asks at #39 why HR (people) always 'sit on the fence', it could be argued that for most/all of the time most HR people are professional in what they do. Some forum users seem to be making unjustified assumptions based on the limited information they've read in this thread about one particular case. As an anology it would also be wrong for HR people to deduce from this forum that all OS&H people are obsessed with RIDDOR and cannot agree about what is notifiable or not!